Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
/ adverse effects
Atrial Fibrillation
/ complications
Catheter Ablation
/ adverse effects
Cause of Death
Exercise Tolerance
Heart Failure
/ complications
Hospitalization
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Oxygen Consumption
Postoperative Complications
Quality of Life
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Risk Assessment
Stroke Volume
Walk Test
Journal
Annals of internal medicine
ISSN: 1539-3704
Titre abrégé: Ann Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372351
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 01 2019
01 01 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
26
12
2018
medline:
16
10
2019
entrez:
25
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement. Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality risk. To compare benefits and harms between catheter ablation and drug therapy in adult patients with AF and HF. ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), EBSCO Information Services, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and various scientific conference sessions from 1 January 2005 to 1 October 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English that had at least 6 months of follow-up and compared clinical outcomes of catheter ablation versus drug therapy in adults with AF and HF. 2 investigators independently extracted data and assessed study quality. 6 RCTs involving 775 patients met inclusion criteria. Compared with drug therapy, AF ablation reduced all-cause mortality (9.0% vs. 17.6%; risk ratio [RR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.81]) and HF hospitalizations (16.4% vs. 27.6%; RR, 0.60 [CI, 0.39 to 0.93]). Ablation improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (mean difference, 6.95% [CI, 3.0% to 10.9%]), 6-minute walk test distance (mean difference, 20.93 m [CI, 5.91 to 35.95 m]), peak oxygen consumption (Vo2max) (mean difference, 3.17 mL/kg per minute [CI, 1.26 to 5.07 mL/kg per minute]), and quality of life (mean difference in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score, -9.02 points [CI, -19.75 to 1.71 points]). Serious adverse events were more common in the ablation groups, although differences between the ablation and drug therapy groups were not statistically significant (7.2% vs. 3.8%; RR, 1.68 [CI, 0.58 to 4.85]). Results driven primarily by 1 clinical trial, possible patient selection bias in the ablation group, lack of patient-level data, open-label trial designs, and heterogeneous follow-up length among trials. Catheter ablation was superior to conventional drug therapy in improving all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, LVEF, 6-minute walk test distance, Vo2max, and quality of life, with no statistically significant increase in serious adverse events. None.
Sections du résumé
This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement.
Background
Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality risk.
Purpose
To compare benefits and harms between catheter ablation and drug therapy in adult patients with AF and HF.
Data Sources
ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), EBSCO Information Services, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and various scientific conference sessions from 1 January 2005 to 1 October 2018.
Study Selection
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English that had at least 6 months of follow-up and compared clinical outcomes of catheter ablation versus drug therapy in adults with AF and HF.
Data Extraction
2 investigators independently extracted data and assessed study quality.
Data Synthesis
6 RCTs involving 775 patients met inclusion criteria. Compared with drug therapy, AF ablation reduced all-cause mortality (9.0% vs. 17.6%; risk ratio [RR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.81]) and HF hospitalizations (16.4% vs. 27.6%; RR, 0.60 [CI, 0.39 to 0.93]). Ablation improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (mean difference, 6.95% [CI, 3.0% to 10.9%]), 6-minute walk test distance (mean difference, 20.93 m [CI, 5.91 to 35.95 m]), peak oxygen consumption (Vo2max) (mean difference, 3.17 mL/kg per minute [CI, 1.26 to 5.07 mL/kg per minute]), and quality of life (mean difference in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score, -9.02 points [CI, -19.75 to 1.71 points]). Serious adverse events were more common in the ablation groups, although differences between the ablation and drug therapy groups were not statistically significant (7.2% vs. 3.8%; RR, 1.68 [CI, 0.58 to 4.85]).
Limitation
Results driven primarily by 1 clinical trial, possible patient selection bias in the ablation group, lack of patient-level data, open-label trial designs, and heterogeneous follow-up length among trials.
Conclusion
Catheter ablation was superior to conventional drug therapy in improving all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, LVEF, 6-minute walk test distance, Vo2max, and quality of life, with no statistically significant increase in serious adverse events.
Primary Funding Source
None.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30583296
pii: 2719811
doi: 10.7326/M18-0992
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
41-50Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : ErratumIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn